The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I’m about to go all postal on ESPN! Check out this BS!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3897093

They rated the top 5 passing performances in a non-playoff game. I don’t really have a problem with the games they chose, what I have a REAL problem with is the one they FORGOT.

Um, hello did ANYONE watch THIS game?

http://espn.go.com/abcsports/mnf/s/greatestgames/chicagomiami1985.html

It was ONLY the highest rated MNF game EVER. Yeah, that’s right EVER.

The Bears were 12-0 going into the game on their way to an 18-1 season. Not only did this win for Miami stop the Bears from being only the 2nd ever undefeated football team, but it also kept the Dolphins as the ONLY one.

The Bears had one of the best defenses EVER.

Marino was 14-27 for 270 and 3 TD’s and he nearly had another but was stopped on the 1 yard line. Not the greatest stats ever but certainly fantastic stats considering the Bears had beaten their previous three opponents by a combined score of 104-3. Yeah 104-3. They hadn’t given up a TD in 13 straight quarters and Marino threw 3 in the game, almost 4.

If Marino doesn’t do that against the Bears, Tom Brady’s game 16 that they selected as the 4th best game is MEANINGLESS Since it would have already been done TWICE!!!!

/HUGEFAIL

Ok, you dont' agree with me? Do this. Read the criteria that ESPN gave as to how they rated the games and then you rate that Miami-Bears game in '85.

Criteria

“Importance of game in which performance took place: Did it have playoff implications? Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? Was it in prime time? Was it against a rival? Divisional opponent?”

Bears would have been only the second team in the HISTORY of the NFL to go undefeated for a season. Miami remains the only team. It did have playoff implications for Miami who wer 8-4 and fighting for an AFC East Championship. After this game Miami realed off 3 mores win and ended up 12-4 to win the AFC East. Rating: 8.

“Quality of opponent: What was the opponent's win-loss record? Was it on a winning streak? Did it make the playoffs or make/win the Super Bowl that season? Did the player in question have a tough or weak individual matchup?”

Bears in '85 have long been established as one of the best defenses ever. They were 12-0 going into the game. Rating: 10. 9 at the very least.

“Impact of performance: Was it the main reason the player's team won the game? Did it have a high statistical value and/or historical significance? Did it occur in a comeback or dramatic victory?”

It was the ONLY reason they won. Bears weren't just tough to play against, they were practically impossible to pass against. They put 8 men at the line of scrimmage and always had 1 free blitzer. Marino's quick release and pinpoint passing in the face of a huge pass rush was the ONLY way Miami could win. Rating: 9.

“Miscellaneous factors: Was the player an extreme underdog? Was he coming off an injury? Was he playing in pain? Did the performance come in the context of a special season for the player's team? Did the performance take place in adverse conditions (hostile environment, inclement weather, etc.)? Was there a high "wow" factor?”

It was the HIGHEST rated Monday Night Football game EVER. Everyone had been talking about the matchup all week. Would Miami defend their crown or would the Bears go undefeated? Bears D versus Marino's arm. ETC ETC ETC. Rating 9.

Ok, add that up. That's 36. That beats a 28 I do believe. Even if you score it significantly lower in every category you end up with at least a 28. And the game wasn't even mentioned as an honorable mention? Please. They screwed up. They totally forgot about this game. There's no other explanation.

Go for it.

Outstaning job at ignore the fact that DM threw an int that's not at all relevent when rating a passing performance. 

Good job at ignoring that the game you feel it should replace was also the game in which multiple records fell including Peyton Manning's and Jerry Rice's TD records. 

And of course you are correct, being the most watched "monday night football game" is way more impressive than being the most watch regular season game in history regardless of the day of the week. 

The rose colored glasses are strong in this one.

Source please.

I didn't ignore the other facts you mentionend, but they hardly matter when you compare the 2 teams that DIDN'T win those days.  Are you telling me that the 2007 Giants can be considered up there with the 1985 Bears?  And if so, you think the '85 Bears Dolphins game didn't even deserve an honorable mention?

I am not gonna waste my time searching for a link.  It was widely reported at the time.
They deserve an honorable mention.  But I  think Dolphin fans overvalue both this game and the 2007 SB as somehow being a '72 Dolphin accomplishment.  A bit messier with this game.  Hypo:  Lets say going into game 16 a WR and QB are 1 game behind Brady and Moss records and the opposing team shutsdown the offense.  Then the game does not automatically become historic for preventing the records from being broken.  It just doesn't work that way.  Nobody other than Dolphin fans and the 72 record ever focuses on games being historic because someone prevented a record from falling or being matched.  Same deal if a running back needs 2 yards to break the single season record for rushing or rookie record or what ever and then fails to gain a single yard.  The game does not become historically significant because someone did not break a record. 

Gonna have to cite you both for felonious laziness... How much time does it take to type "most watched regular season game in NFL history" into Google? Yep...that 5 seconds yielded a top search result of the following article from 2007:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2736854320071231 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2736854320071231)

"The historic New England Patriots-New York Giants game pushed past this year's Patriots-Indianapolis Colts thriller to become the most-watched regular-season NFL telecast since 1995.

At least 34.5 million people tuned in to various outlets, including both CBS and NBC, to watch the Pats earn a place in NFL history Saturday by completing a perfect 16-0 regular season with a 38-35 victory over the Giants, according to preliminary estimates released Sunday by Nielsen Media Research.

That tops everything since the Thanksgiving 1995 Kansas City Chiefs-Dallas Cowboys game that averaged 35.7 million viewers. It also was ahead of CBS' 33.8 million viewers for the November 4 Patriots-Colts game..."

Well I did google it and that's what I came up with too.  That article says it was the most watched regular season game in NFL since 1995.  Not ever.  Just in the last 12 years.  If it's the most ever, I haven't seen an article that states that.

Trust me when I tell you that Bears fans don't agree with you either. :)

I believe this game was what it was - a regular season game that showed exactly why it's hard to go undefeated in the regular season.  Eventually you'll hit a team, usually on the road, that pulls a game out of their ass.  See also Indy and Denver's shots at going undefeated.

Based on what the Bears did to that point, it was a pretty big feat for Miami to win.  That said, the Bears were due for a let down (1), Miami's offense was a Juggernaut (2) and Miami wasn't exactly a 4-12 team that year (3).  At the end of the day it was a speed bump, and nothing more, for the Bears.  Had New England NOT upset Miami in the AFC Title game the end result of the season would have been the same.  Chicago would have crushed Miami had they met again.

that's pure speculation, usually when an NFL team beats another NFL team they can do it again. How often do you see a team that goes 2-0 against a division opponent, meet them again in the playoffs, they almost always win that 3rd game.

Really? 

Actually it is pretty rare for a team to play the same team three times.

Last time it occured was 2007.  Giants - Cowboys...Go check the results.

And division splits and splits between 1 regulars season and 1 post season are pretty common.   For example Patriots split with both the Jets, Dolphins, and Ravens this year (3/4).  Mia split with both the Bills and NE.  (2/3) 

In fact one of the things that makes the NFL so exciting "on any given sunday." 

The last three times the SB teams met in the regular season '99, '01, '07 the winning in the regular season was the loser in the SB.

Actually, it's not.  Take a look at what the Bears did to everyone that year, minus one game -- ON THE ROAD -- against Miami.

Now take a look at what Miami did that year.

Was that win a one game fluke?  If it wasn't, and Miami could beat a one loss team at will, wouldn't it stand to reason their own record would have been much better that season (and they wouldn't have lost to the Pats, AT HOME, in the AFC Title game)?

That one win was not a fluke, but it was fluke-ish.  Winners bet with streaks.  Losers bet against them.  Chicago was the streak and would have had Miami for dinner that year had they met again.

I agree in principle, but wouldn't call it a fluke that Miami beat the Bears. A fluke would have been some incompetent team (which Miami was not) beating them.

I'm a bit confused what you are implying with this statement, if anything.  If you are implying what I think you might be implying, that it really meant nothing to the Bears and their fans, I strongly disagree.

I was born and raised in Illinois and growing up about 100 miles outside Chicago, I was actually a Bears fan prior to becoming a Dolphins fan around '78 or so.  My family on the other hand is and always have been HUGE Bears fans as they were in '85.  I had a bet with my brother on this game and everyone in my family had ribbed me mercilessly prior to the game about what they were going to do to Marino.  They were convinced that the '85 Bear were UNBEATABLE.  They had beaten the previous 3 teams 104-3.  While they thought it possible that Miami would give them a decent game, they didn't in their wildest imaginations believe that Miami could beat them.  In fact even I being the Dolphin fan didn't believe that was possible and I took the points in the bet which I believe was 7 or 10 points or something like that which is pretty big for a road team on a Monday Night. Another indicator of just how sure everyone was that the Bears would win that my Brother gladly gave me the points in the bet.  He like most thought Marino was a sitting duck for all those great Bear pass rushers, I alone thought Marino could pull it off and maybe give the Bears some trouble.

After the game, they were all in shock what Marino had done and even said they thought that was the greatest game they'd ever seen by a QB.  To this day I remind my brother about that game and he just groans.  

Believe me they were all hoping that Miami would be in the SB because it was gonna be payback time.  I have no doubt that the Bears would have beaten Miami the 2nd time around had they met, but that in no way diminshed what occured that Monday Night.  It was an amazing game by an amazing athlete.  No one will ever convince me that it wasn't.  I know a lot of folks that are huge Bears fans and to this day, this is probably one of their biggest disappointments, that they didn't beat Miami and go 19-0 in '85 and join the Dolphins as the only undefeated team.

Maybe it's not a big game to anyone who wasn't a Dolphin or Bears fan in '85, but to anyone who was, it was a HUGE game.

It wasn't a fluke, but it was fluke-ish.  Miami had a good team that year.  The Bears were out of this world great, and on all sides of the ball.  If Chicago and Miami played ten times that year, Chicago would have won 8-9 of those games.  Superior talent wins the majority of the time.  The game in Miami was the perfect storm. 


I am implying that Chicago ass raped the league before the Miami game and went on to ass rape the rest of the league after the Miami game, including playoff and Super Bowl beat downs that were of epic scale.  I don't care what that one game meant to the fans of either team.  That one game, on the scale of what makes a season successful (Super Bowl win) was a road bump for the Bears.

Which just makes it all the more incredible what Marino did.

 
Hence going back to the original point of this thread why it is not in the top 5.  It was a big game for the fans of the two teams who played in the game.  The fans of the other 30 teams don’t really consider that game all that special.  As opposed to the other games on the list which held the interest of fans from 32 team’s fan bases.


I will call it a fluke.  Much of the Dolphins solid record that year was there was NOBODY in the AFC that was very good that year.  The Giants, Cowboys, Redskins, Rams, and 49rs where each better than Miami, NE, Jets, Raiders or Broncos.  It really didn’t matter who the AFC send and who the NFC sent.  The NFC championship was the super bowl.

And keep in mind the Dolphins lost twice to a team that the Bears destroyed 46-10. (NE)

But that is what makes the NFL different from MLB, NHL or NBA.  There are no 7 game series.  And on given Sunday a weaker team can beat a stronger team. 

No rational person actually believes that the ’01 Patriots could beat the Rams in a 7 game series.

No rational person actually believes that the ’07 Giants could beat the Patriots in a 7 game series.

No rational person actually believes that the ’85 Dolphins could beat the ’85 Bears in a 7 game series. 

So the '85 Bears really WEREN'T a good team?  Marino really didn't play all that well in the game?  It really WASN'T Marino's play that helped the Dolphins win?  It really DIDN'T stop a 12 game winning streak of a team that ended up losing only 1 game all year?

I challenge you to go back and read what the criteria they used was again and rate the game following that criteria.

If you're going to discount how big of an achievement going undefeated is to the rest of the NFL in '85 then you have to discount game 16 of 2007 as well.  Nothing Brady did in that game was more impressive than what Marino did in '85 considering the competition.  The '85 Bears were one of the best defensive teams ever that went 15-1 and steamrolled everyone BUT the Dolphins.  The 2007 Giants were a wild card team that got hot in the playoffs, but hadn't impressed anyone up to that point.

Your missing the point.  Not breaking a record doesn't make the game a big game.  Breaking a record makes a game a big game.

What makes the 2007 week 17 game special is that the Patriots became the first team to win 16 games in the regular season.  They broke a record. 

The 2007 SB is not as significant as the '72 SB.  Because in one case a team created history, in the other game the winning team merely prevented history from being made (the only team to go 19-0 in a season.)

Only because the Dolphins beat the Bears in '85. :)

Can I ask you something Hoodie?  Did you actually see the game in '85?  Were you a fan of the NFL in '85?

The reason I ask is you seem to be from a later generation than I.  Back in '85 there was no NFL network.  Thursday night games didn't exist except on Thanksgiving.  I don't believe there were Saturday games, nor Sunday night games.  Sunday you usually were able to watch 1 or maybe 2 games and that was it.  Monday night games were huge.  It was the only prime time game.  It was the showcase game of the week and players and fans all knew it and while everybody watched their own team play every week, pretty much anyone who was a fan of the NFL watched the Monday Night football game.  I believe that game back in '85 had around 29 million viewers.  Compare that with the 30 something million viewers that watched the game 16 of the 2007 Patriots and it's just not accurate to say that game in '85 was only important to the 2 football teams involved in the game and not to the rest of the league.  I don't see how you could feel that way if you were watching it in '85.  Sounds like you saw Game 16 in 2007 and felt something special about the game.  No doubt the guys for ESPN who came up with list felt the same thing.  Well in my humble opinion if they had been there and watched the game in '85 they would have felt the same thing.

I watched the game, but was doing homework at the same time so I was not watching every play super close. It was my freshman year in college.  It wasn't really rooting for either side.

******

I will grant you on quality of opponent it should be a 10.  You got the other 3 wrong.

“Importance of game in which performance took place: Did it have playoff implications? Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? Was it in prime time? Was it against a rival? Divisional opponent?”

Playoff implications?  for half the teams. 

Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? no

Was it in prime time?  yes

 Was it against a rival? no

Divisional opponent?”  no

score 3.

“Impact of performance: Was it the main reason the player's team won the game? Did it have a high statistical value and/or historical significance? Did it occur in a comeback or dramatic victory?”

Mario threw an interception, 2/5 of the TDs came from rushing TDs, and the MAIN reason why the Dolphins won was the Bears threw 3 ints and fumbled the ball once.   The Dolphins lead the entire game and it did not come down to the wire at the end. 

Score 5, 6 at best.

“Miscellaneous factors: Was the player an extreme underdog? Was he coming off an injury? Was he playing in pain? Did the performance come in the context of a special season for the player's team? Did the performance take place in adverse conditions (hostile environment, inclement weather, etc.)? Was there a high "wow" factor?”

No, no, no, no, no, no, you get that one.
Score 3

We agree to disagree then.

Lets use your rankings on Brady's game just for grins.

Quality of opponent.

Score 5.

“Importance of game in which performance took place: Did it have playoff implications? Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? Was it in prime time? Was it against a rival? Divisional opponent?”

Playoff implications?  Neither.

Did it break a losing streak or spark a winning streak for the player's team? no

Was it in prime time?  no

Was it against a rival? no

Divisional opponent?”  no

score 1.

“Impact of performance: Was it the main reason the player's team won the game? Did it have a high statistical value and/or historical significance? Did it occur in a comeback or dramatic victory?”

Score 8

“Miscellaneous factors: Was the player an extreme underdog? Was he coming off an injury? Was he playing in pain? Did the performance come in the context of a special season for the player's team? Did the performance take place in adverse conditions (hostile environment, inclement weather, etc.)? Was there a high "wow" factor?”

No, no, no, yes, no, no. you get that one.
Score 3
 
That's a 21 for Marino's game and 17 for Brady's.
 

So by that logic, the rushing defense of Jax week 8 of 2003 was historic cause they held Jamal Lewis to a season low of 68 yards and had he had a game like had against cleveland week 2 he would have broken Dickerson's record.  And in fact is more historic than the games in which Dickerson played in '84.  

No, by my logic Dickerson's record is defined by the previous best record whomever held it when he broke it.  The Patriots beat the next best record which was 15-1 or 14-0 depending on how you look at it.

Okay so Dickerson should thank the Mia rushing defense of '73 which week 5 held OJ Simpson to 55 yards, because had Miami let OJ run 250 yards like he had against NE week 1, Dickerson would have never broken OJ's single season record.  Thus the MIA-Bills game is more historic than anything that happened during a Rams game of '84, when Dickerson in fact broke OJ's record. 

In fact to take it one step further....every game other than the game in which Adrian Peterson, rushed 296 yard is historically significant because had any team let another player rush for 297 yards, Peterson would not hold that record. 

Where did I say the Bears-Dolphins game of '85 was more historic than the NE 2007 game?  I said the Bears were a better opponent than the 2007 Giants.  It was historic because the Dolphins were huge underdogs in the game and held the record the Bears were trying to beat.  Had the Giants beaten the NE Patriots in that game and the Giants were the ones who held the 14-0 record than it would have been a historic upset of the same magnitude of the Dolphins-Bears.  As it turns out the game itself was pretty much anti-climatic because although NE now has the best regular season record, it wasn't even a championship season because they failed to win the most important game.  Personally I'll take the perfect 17-0 season over NE's 2007 season.  Hell I'll take the Bear's 18-1 season over NE's 2007 season.

That's called a converse theory and most converse theories don't hold true.  Just because you have a theory that can be proven, the converse of that theory doesn't always hold true.  In fact a lot of times it doesn't.  It's one of the many mistakes that people make when argueing.  They use the converse to prove it's false, but proving the converse to a theory fase doesn't make the theory false.

(Once again pretending not going undefeated is as sigificant as going undefeated)



So I count three times.

That is what you are doing.  Engaging in the converse theory.  Saying that the Bears-Dolphins game is significant because it prevented the 14-0 and 17-0 records to fall to a 16-0 and 19-0 records and thus is just as significant as the game in which the 14-0 record fell to a 16-0 record. 

What I am doing is giving an example by way of analogy.  If what you state is true that the Dolphins stopping the Bears from going 16-0 and 19-0 is historically significant than every team who has held a running back to less than to 296 yards is also just as significant, which shows just how absurd your claim is.

Nice try.  PREVENTING a team from going undefeated when they COULD have been undefeated is significant, not simply not going undefeated.  Everyone in the NFL does that pretty much every year.  Only the Dolphins beat the Bears in '85.  It was significant that the Patriots won 16 regular season games, I'm not taking that away from them, however had one team beat them that year, that game would have been significant for that very reason. 

Take for example the SB.  Will the '07 Giants be remembered for winning the SB or will they be remembered as the team who prevented the Patriots from going undefeated?  I'll bet you ask someone in 10 years who won the SB in '2007 and they won't remember, but if you ask who beat the Patriots to prevent them from being undefeated they'll have a better shot at remembering who it was.

You're not really going to argue that the Patriots winning 16 regular season games is as significant if the Bears had already done it in '85 are you? 

Title of the the thread is... " Somebody Stop me!"

I tried.  I give up.  I made my best effort into talking some sense into you.  It is a hopeless. 

Why are people acting like the '85 Bears would simply outclass the '85 Dolphins?  Setting aside the fact that the Dolphins beat the Bears convincingly head-to-head, this was a team that had just come off of setting nearly every record in the book in '84.  By the logic being used above, the '84 49ers (who had a good, but not legendary defense) should have been blown off of the field by the '84 Dolphins (who had one of the best offenses of all time).  You're acting like a Bears-Dolphins SB would have been analogous to Rams-Patriots or Patriots-Giants; the Dolphins were the reigning AFC champs and if they would have been an underdog, it would not have been anything remotely close to the scale of the other two SBs I mentioned.

Matchups matter.  Just because a defense is able to shut down Tom Brady and Drew Brees, it doesn't mean that they can shut down Peyton Manning.  Miami lost to the Patriots, so they don't get to claim that they were the best team that year, but saying that the '85 Dolphins would get blown off the field by the '85 Bears is absurd. 

That is why it isn't a fluke.